Hello Rickard,
> No, incorrect.
...
> Nope.
...
> Wrong.
oups...
...
> *That* is correct.
ouf!
> Extension is that two deployed beans must, by
> default, be mapped to two separate database tables, since they must have
> different EJB names.
OK, I see.
> If this is not desired, such in your case, then you need to use jaws.xml
> to explicitly set the table name to be equal, but also to use commit
> option B or C so as to avoid caching problems.
OK, so it becomes a bit tricky...
> > > The above is not the best way to solve this. Use security instead.
...
> > the client with tricky interfaces ;)
>
> It's very rarely a good idea anyway to blindly use the remote interface
> as a list of methods that may be invoked. Use a layer on top of your
> beans to accomplish this, and you will more easily be able to make
> multiple clients to one set of EJB's. That's one of the goals of EJB
> anyway.
>
> You may do as outlined above, but it is definitely not recommended.
> Better to use either JavaBean layer on top that explicitly limits
> available methods in client, or use security to limit access at
> invoke-time, or use session bean as facade to provide several "faces" of
> your application.
OK, I will follow your recomendations : I didn't fall in love with the
jaws.xml trick... ;)
I'll most probably use a session beans layer. Thanks again for your help.
Cheers,
Sacha
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
